See the link below. At the meeting of the TU Trout Management Committee on Saturday we were told of a list of streams slated to be removed from the Class A list. The reason being that they were never assessed by PFBC or anyone else for Wild Trout. PFBC is being challenged on this stuff by the Coal industry and Marcellus folks for being included and never being assessed. So the question is, if you know of any streams on the list to have wild trout, please contact the person for that county to let them know. 2 of the streams on the list are near my camp and I plan to fish them this year and contact the person. Here is the list of streams being considered.Class A

(Edit by Mod staff: Folks, before you click on this stream list, please note the following posts in this thread. Thanks.)

Posted on: 2014/3/10 10:35

Edited by Fishidiot on 2014/3/10 13:03:14Edited by Fishidiot on 2014/3/10 13:04:40

Whoa!!!!!!!!!!! What the heck????????????? I see nothing that says these streams are Class A.

They are wild trout streams, but nothing says they are class A. Let's not get a rumor started in the fly fishing community!!!

The list of proposed removals begins at the bottom of the second page of the lists and continues to the fourth page of the lists. I don't want you to quickly glance at the list and confuse the additions that appear on the first page and assume that they are the proposed deletions.

Editors/forum monitors: A little help here please with the info. in the op.

Anglers hold out on letting the PFBC biologists know the locations of previously unassessed wild trout streams at their own peril. It does not matter whether the streams are in coal or gas country anymore. A marcellus related pipeline expansion is planned, for instance, along the lower Susuquehanna in southern Lancaster Co, far removed from any coal or gas fields. The pipeline will cross what are believed to be some unassessed wild trout streams.

Fox, the last thing any AFM wants is his phone ringing off the hook about a rumor that a long list of Class A's are being removed from the program. Yes, the post hit a nerve that required a pre-emptive strike that would get people's attention.

Hopefully guys will see your second post and take heed. I know its a catch-22 when we find streams that no one knows about and have trout. We'd like to keep that gem to ourselves but your message is loud and clear to me, we keep it quiet at a potentail cost to said stream!! (only used 2)

In the PFBC notice, some of the streams listed as being considered for removal include several tribs to the First Fork of the Sinnemahoning: Pine Hollow (Pine Island Run), Mahon Run, Owl Run, and Rattlesnake Run. After a quick scan of Google Earth, its very interesting that each of these streams are relatively close to each other on the Potter/ Cameron county line and each runs off a plateau on the east side of the First Fork that has quite a few old access roads and well heads. In fact, that mountain top is very near a gas compressor station(?) we have always called "gas city". It appears as if the Shale industry (or some one) may be planning something here and the streams' designation may be getting in the way of easy access/greater profit. Not sure what other reason there would be for these particular streams in a particular area to be singled out.

Wonder what the IRRC would have to say about these designations? (HB 1576 is up for floor vote tomorrow.)

Posted on: 2014/3/10 20:32

Edited by double00 on 2014/3/10 21:07:17Edited by double00 on 2014/3/10 21:08:53Edited by double00 on 2014/3/10 21:12:43

It seems that the streams designated for removal were at one time known wild trout streams. It seems that alone would afford some protection or else what use is such a list. And who would benefit from it's exclusion from said list. Mike, any info?

Mike wrote:Whoa!!!!!!!!!!! What the heck????????????? I see nothing that says these streams are Class A.

They are wild trout streams, but nothing says they are class A. Let's not get a rumor started in the fly fishing community!!!

The list of proposed removals begins at the bottom of the second page of the lists and continues to the fourth page of the lists. I don't want you to quickly glance at the list and confuse the additions that appear on the first page and assume that they are the proposed deletions.

Editors/forum monitors: A little help here please with the info. in the op.

My mistake Mike, I was looking at both proposals at the same time any got the story wrong. they were Streams with Natural Reproduction. Sorry guys.

double00 wrote:In the PFBC notice, some of the streams listed as being considered for removal include several tribs to the First Fork of the Sinnemahoning: Pine Hollow (Pine Island Run), Mahon Run, Owl Run, and Rattlesnake Run. After a quick scan of Google Earth, its very interesting that each of these streams are relatively close to each other on the Potter/ Cameron county line and each runs off a plateau on the east side of the First Fork that has quite a few old access roads and well heads. In fact, that mountain top is very near a gas compressor station(?) we have always called "gas city". It appears as if the Shale industry (or some one) may be planning something here and the streams' designation may be getting in the way of easy access/greater profit. Not sure what other reason there would be for these particular streams in a particular area to be singled out.

Wonder what the IRRC would have to say about these designations? (HB 1576 is up for floor vote tomorrow.)

The way it was explained that is exactly what is happening, but you don't call the AFM, you call the people in the post about the unassessed streams post.The streams listed in the proposal are all streams that went on the list and were never assessed, were assumed to be WTS.Unassessed brookie streamsImight also add all those streams are also in coal country.